Ashkenazi intelligence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)) - AfD discussion is here
Page was kept due to popular vote, not consensus. None of the arguments which countered the Keep votes were addressed, merely ignored. The discussion did not attract enough users for a consensus. I move to either overturn the decision or relist the article for deletion and expand the discussion. Closing admin has no talk page, merely a link to deletion review. ScienceApe (talk) 04:40, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse decision. There was no consensus to delete the article, nor did the strength of the delete arguments outweigh the strength of the keep arguments. The admin made the right decision. —BradV 05:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse decision. There were valid arguments made to keep the article - this is consensus. It seemed that the proposer was more concerned with the science (or lack of) itself rather than the notability, and that an encyclopedia article is not a scientific journal piece. The admin did the right thing. Best, A Sniper (talk) 06:40, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- endorse decision a popular vote of informed established editors using consideration of policy is consensus. There was no apparent sockpuppetry, no ILIKEIT, no IKNOWITSIMPORTANT, no pile-ons. Every Keep argument had a sensible reason. so of course did most of the delete arguments, but more of the people there said keep. I think that's all an admin need judge. If he were to judge relative strength of the arguments, some of the deletes were based on the topic being inherently racist, which is not a good argument and verges on CENSORship, and a persistent effort by the nominator to assert inadequate data, which was not substantiated. There was a first noconsensus keep on Feb 2007, and then a keep on Nov. 2007. This is a year later. Consensus has not changed. Reading the afds, I'd say the keep is a little stronger now. It would be in my view improper to bring this up gain fora at least another year. (I dod wish Stifle had explained his close a when the afd is as much contested by responsible editors on each side.; I think also it is his obligation as a closing admin to have a talk page and respond to questions there. But nonetheless his decision was right. )DGG (talk) 09:14, 6 December 2008 (UTC) .[reply]
- I choose to ask all users opposing my AFD closures to come straight here because I consider that reversing a closure is unfair to the users who have seen and are satisfied with the result, and I consider my closures carefully (by opening several tabs, considering the decisions separately, and then posting them all at once — this action is for reasons related to my internet connection) and find that I rarely, if ever, reverse my closures on request. Stifle (talk) 12:14, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The majority of the deletes were not based on the topic being inherently racist at all. They were based on the reasoning of two key issues. That the article was based on a paper, so it therefore the paper itself counts as a first party source, and the lack of reliable third party sources. Furthermore my claims of inadequate data is substantiated by the sheer amount of original research in the article that would require the removal of at least two sections leaving only a paragraph on the original paper. This is not sufficient for an entire article. The previous AFD closing admin admitted that the article was bad and in need of citations, but in over a year the article's quality was not improved because reliable third party sources for this topic do not exist. So the original research persisted. ScienceApe (talk) 16:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse own decision. AFD is not a court of law or a debating society where users "win" or "lose" by making arguments that aren't refuted by others; rather, it is an attempt to gauge whether the general feeling (or consensus, if you will) of Wikipedia users is towards keeping or deleting the article. Users aren't required to have good, watertight reasons for having their opinion (although the users in this deletion discussion did, as a general rule). Stifle (talk) 12:15, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There weren't enough opinions to reach a consensus. The discussion should be extended to include more opinions on the matter. ScienceApe (talk) 16:06, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If you feel that the official deletion process terms of when deletion discussions should be amended (you can read what's currently there at WP:RELIST), feel free to propose a change at Wikipedia talk:Deletion process or elsewhere. However, this deletion discussion had 17 contributors, which is three times the usual amount. Therefore, with due respect, it seems to me that while you say you would like more opinions, what I think you want is more opinions that agree with yours. Stifle (talk) 18:39, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Can we wrap this up now? There was consensus and there appears to be no basis for this appeal (according to the directions on appeals). The user seeking deletion simply does not agree with the consensus opinion (or that there was even a consensus) and this probably won't change. Remove the tag and let's get on with other things. Best, A Sniper (talk) 21:45, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We may as well leave it for the five days unless ScienceApe withdraws. Stifle (talk) 22:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not really sure what you are saying I can do. Proposing a change at Wikipedia talk:Deletion process doesn't seem very useful in this situation. What can I do at WP:RELIST)? Considering the subject matter, I would like to have more opinions actually. The article is subject to bias, and quite a few of the contributers who voted "Keep" were Jewish including A Sniper. A discussion on this subject should have more opinions than the typical article to help weed out any possible bias. ScienceApe (talk) 04:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As I already said, this discussion did have more opinions than the typical article. Three times as many. Stifle (talk) 12:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Like I said. I would like more than what the AFD had considering the controversial nature of the subject matter. ScienceApe (talk) 15:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
quite a few of the contributers who voted "Keep" were Jewish WTF!? Not only is this proposal for deletion absurd, but ScienceApe's standing is near zero if not less than zero after this statement. Close the deletion review already. Arguments for deleting the article mostly boil down to opposition to the theory (which I agree is pretty weak) rather than notability. CAVincent (talk) 19:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC) - After cooling down, I realize I was overly sensitive here and owe ScienceApe an apology for the personal attack (re: his standing). I'd remove it, but then part of his response wouldn't make sense. CAVincent (talk) 03:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Whether you like it or not, what I said is true. There is a possibility for bias which would interfere with the AFD discussion. Arguments for deleting the article were covered comprehensively if you read the AFD discussion, which I'm assuming you didn't since your last statement was incorrect. The arguments for deleting the article are clearly presented. Please read them carefully before commenting. ScienceApe (talk) 22:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed I did read the arguments. You started the nomination discussion with "Article is poorly written, and does not have much scientific supporting evidence. Seems to be supporting racial superiority rather than reporting actual scientific data. There are really only three sections, none of which support the claim that Ashkenazi Jews are more intelligent than other ethnicities. " While no one is disputing that the article is poorly written, the rest of this as well as your subsequent arguments stem from the mistaken belief that the article's purpose is to present as fact arguments for superior Ashkenazi intelligence. As numerous editors have attempted to point out, this is not true - the article is instead about the existence of claims of superior Ashkenazi intelligence and responses to those claims. (I do think a better job could be done making this distinction in the article.) Your statements such as "there was only one reliable source" make sense only in the context of this mistake. There are in fact many reliable sources cited and more which could be added to verify that this topic has been notably discussed among scientists and covered in major publications (NY Times, Washington Post, National Geographic, etc.). Just because the claim for superior intelligence is not scientifically well-supported is not a valid reason to delete the article. And as for the comment that many "keep" voters are Jewish, I don't know how you are able to establish this (do Jewish edits in wikipedia look Jewish?) but are you seriously suggesting that people who endorse keeping the article are motivated by a desire to claim their ethnic superiority? CAVincent (talk) 23:50, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I should point out that every user who is endorsing the decision, also voted to keep the article in question in the AFD to begin with, other than the closing admin. ScienceApe (talk) 05:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And? Stifle (talk) 12:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it's pretty obvious. They would logically support the decision because it supports their view that the article should be kept. ScienceApe (talk) 15:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse Closure Correct reading of the debate, with reasonable keep arguments based on their interpretation of policy. It was also well attended compared to many AFD discussions. Davewild (talk) 11:35, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse closure Keep was based on support by participants referencing the reliable and verifiable sources in the article. No evidence that there is any aspect of the close that is out of process. Alansohn (talk) 19:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There was only one reliable source. The paper itself which we established was a first party source since the article is based on it. The other sources are unreliable. There are no reliable third party sources. According to Wikipedia's policies, reliable third party sources are required. No reliabloe third party sources are cited, nor were any presented. There might be bias in the discussion due to the controversial nature of the subject matter. I feel the discussion should be expanded to gather more opinions on this matter. ScienceApe (talk) 22:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse closure There was no consensus to delete in the AFD, and there was no argument for deletion from a policy that overrides consensus (e.g. copyright) made in the AFD or here. Deletion is not a valid close of that discussion. GRBerry 21:27, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
|